1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Th

Discussion in 'The Debates' started by Thiizic, Sep 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thiizic

    Thiizic Futurist

    Good day Postial.

    nist)
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
  2. Demon_skeith

    Demon_skeith New Member

    I feel there is some creative force out there, a wind that got everything in motion. But all the gods people wage war over and worship I do not believe in specially since 4000 god have been created through out man kinds history.

    To do anything in the name of god but to live is not right.
     
  3. NecroWolf

    NecroWolf New Member

    I tell you what, Darwinism should be considered a religion. There's about as much evidence for evolution as there is for God. Even Darwin himself rewrote the theories several times, then abandoned them altogether, and here we are over a century later and evolution is still only a "theory".

    I believe in a God, a Great Spirit, but I do not follow any one particular denomination or sect.
     
  4. Thiizic

    Thiizic Futurist

    ...I take it you are a creationist? HA

    have you ever even studied the scientific theory of evolution?

    Darwin, was a hardcore christian. He found out the animals evolved
    and wouldnt even release the info because he was scared it would convert people.
    If scientists were to find one thing out of place, evolution would be thrown out the window, but they havent.

    I suggest you also look up the definition of religion too.
     
  5. NecroWolf

    NecroWolf New Member

    Evolution never been "in the window", that's why it's only a theory not a fact. In fact there are tons of holes in evolution, so many in fact that Darwin abandoned the theories altogether, but I already said that. It's a sad thing when the author of the theories abandons them.

    I think Darwinism fits the third definition.
     
  6. wasi90lk

    wasi90lk New Member

    I think there is a God because this world is really systematic. I do not think all these happened simply because by chance, there has to be an intelligent designer (i.e. God).
     
  7. Boss Jr.

    Boss Jr. New Member

    @NecroWolf: A Theory is a body of facts that describe natural phenomena. Evolution is a fact. It has been proven in the field and the laboratory, is testable and repeatable and has been directly observed under natural and controlled conditions. It has stood for a century and a half and no one has even ever come close to proving it false, not even once. Even the Pope himself once stated that his beliefs not withstanding nothing in nature makes sense except in light of Evolution. So the argument that it's just a theory doesn't stand and only proves that you don't know the definition of the word "Theory".

    Secondly if you had bothered to research the subject at all then you would already know why your arguments against it are futile. Evolution is a science. Science has no belief system and is the antithesis of belief. Belief would introduce confirmation bias into the lab and that defeats the purpose of Science. Science also has no rituals, doctrine, deities or dogma. Has nothing to say of the subject of Supernatural beings nor will it ever have anything to say on them. Proving further that you do not understand the purpose of Science.

    A theory will always have holes. All theories do. The reason is because it is impossible to know everything about anything or to know anything about everything perfectly. Gravitational theory incorrectly predicts Mercury's orbit around the sun and yet I will challenge you to say that you don't except the theory of gravity. There are also some fairly large holes in the Theory of Relativity but it's still regarded as one of the greatest revelations in the history of science.

    Darwin didn't abandon his own theory. There's no proof of that... although there is some evidence to suggest that he did abandon religion there towards the end.

    If you would like to try again in debunking Evolution I accept the challenge. ;)
     
  8. NecroWolf

    NecroWolf New Member

    the·o·ry
    noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\

    : an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

    : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

    : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject


    Notice it says "is not known or proven to be true". Seems I know the definition better than you do. The words theory and fact are not synonymous and never have been. Evolution has never been proven true or false. In fact several scientists speak against evolution:


    After more than a century of research, no one has yet figured out how evolution could have occurred.

    "The evolution of the animal and plant worlds is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," in American Scientist, Vol. 409, January 1952, p. 84.

    A leading scientist of our time has this to say:

    "Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming, president, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

    Evolutionary theory is nothing more than a myth, and concerned scientists recognized it needs to be obliterated in order for science to progress. *Grasse is a leading French scientist:

    "Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

    A growing number of scientists consider it the primary work of science to defend this foolish theory. For this reason it is ruining scientific research and conclusions in our modern world.

    "It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end, no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin’s pronouncements and predictions . . Let’s cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

    Not one smallest particle of scientific evidence has been found in support of evolutionary theory.

    " ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

    "The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389.

    The truth about the precarious position of the theory, and the falsity of the evidence in its behalf, is kept from science students—and even Ph.D. graduates. An evolutionist who teaches in a university speaks:

    "I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

    *Singer admits there is no evidence for such an incredible theory, but he is unwilling to consider any other possibility.

    "Evolution is perhaps unique among major scientific theories in that the appeal for its acceptance is not that there is evidence of it, but that any other proposed interpretation of the data is wholly incredible."—*Charles Singer, A Short History of Science to the Nineteenth Century, 1941.

    Thinking scientists increasingly question such an obsolete theory.

    "Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism."—*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88.

    *Jastrow, a leading astronomer, admits that the evidence lies with Creation, not with evolution.

    "Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

    *Bonner makes a broad admission.

    "One is disturbed because what is said gives us the uneasy feeling that we knew it for a long time deep down but were never willing to admit this even to ourselves. It is another one of those cold and uncompromising situations where the naked truth and human nature travel in different directions.

    "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence of invertebrate phyla. We do not know what group arose from what other group or whether, for instance, the transition from Protozoa occurred once, or twice, or many times . . We have all been telling our students for years not to accept any statement on its face value but to examine the evidence, and therefore, it is rather a shock to discover that we have failed to follow our own sound advice."—*John T. Bonner, book review of Implications of Evolution by *G.A. Kerkut, in American Scientist, June 1961, p. 240. [*John Bonner is with the California Institute of Technology.]

    *Simpson, a leading evolutionist writer of the mid-20th century, says it is time to give up trying to find a mechanism for evolutionary origins or change.

    "Search for the cause of evolution has been abandoned. It is now clear that evolution has no single cause."—*G.G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

    "It might be argued that the theory is quite unsubstantiated and has status only as a speculation."—*George G. Simpson, Major Features, pp. 118-119.

    Simpson tried harder than most evolutionists to defend evolution. Commenting on one of *Simpson’s earlier efforts to present evolutionary causes, Entomology Studies recognized it as but another in the confusing use of empty words to supply the place of solid evidence.

    "When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—*"Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1982, p. 567.

    *Thompson, a leading scientist, was asked to write the introduction for a new printing of *Darwin’s Origin of the Species. But Thompson’s Introduction proved to be a stunning attack on evolutionary theory.

    "Modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable . . and the reader is left with the feeling that if the data do not support the theory they really ought to . . This situation, where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," Origin of Species; statement reprinted in Journal of the American Affiliation, March 1960.

    Although they fear to say too much openly, *Denton reveals that there are a surprising number of biologists who cannot accept the foolishness of Darwinian theory.

    "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

    *Denton says that the evolutionary myth has always been a problem to scientists. The "evolutionary crisis" is nothing new.

    "The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    "The fact is that the evidence was so patchy one hundred years ago that even Darwin himself had increasing doubts as to the validity of his views, and the only aspect of his theory which has received any support over the past century is where it applies to microevolutionary phenomena. His general theory, that all life on earth had originated and evolved by a gradual successive accumulation of fortuitous mutations, is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

    Kenyon, a West Coast scientist, summarizes some of the evidence against evolutionary theory.

    "Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto [in the whole, entirely], the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."—Dean Kenyon, Creationist View of Biological Origins, NEXA Journal, Spring 1984, p. 33 [San Francisco State University].

    *Macbeth says that when men cling to an outworn theory with no supporting evidence, the problem is within the mind. They are entrenched dogmatists, fearful to consider alternative facts and conclusions.

    "When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 77.

    *Bonner declares there is no evidence that any species descended from any other species.

    "The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

    There are no facts supporting the evolutionary claim that any species ever changed into any other.

    "The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch [1959], was able to provide a long list of leading authorities who have been inclined to the view that macroevolution [changes across species] cannot be explained in terms of microevolutionary processes [changes within species], or any other currently known mechanisms. These dissenters cannot be dismissed as cranks, creationists, or vitalists, for among their ranks are many first-rate biologists."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 86.

    All that the evolutionists can point to is change within species; they have no evidence of change across species.

    "The very success of the Darwinian model at a microevolutionary [sub-species] level . . only serves to highlight its failure at a macroevolutionary [across species] level."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 344.

    There is no evidence on the origin of species.

    "The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories."—*Richard Goldschmidt, The Natural Basis of Evolution, p. 165.

    Instead of intergraded changes from one species to another, we only find distinct species types.

    "Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize the extreme rigidity of type, and more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another—the essential basis of Darwinism."—*McNair Wilson, "The Witness of Science," in the Oxford Medical Publications (1942).

    Evolutionary theory cannot square with scientific facts.

    "The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishman, zoologist.

    Evolutionary theory faces a granite wall.

    "Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: the Secret of Life," New York Times.

    *Toulmin senses that a supernatural power must be at work. The intricate galactic systems, the environment on Earth, the myriads of carefully designed plants and animals; it all points to a super-powerful, massively intelligent Creator.

    "It seems to me astronomy has proven that forces are at work in the world that are beyond the present power of scientific description; these are literally supernatural forces, because they are outside the body of natural law."—*S. Toulmin, "Science, Philosophy of," in Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 18 (15th ed. 1974), p. 389.

    The two great riddles for evolutionists are these: "Nothing cannot become something"—a Big Bang cannot turn nothing into stars.

    "Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else."—*G.K. Chesterton (1925).

    Not a single fact in nature confirms it.

    " ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

    Evolution, which is supposed to be caused by accidents, is itself headed for a collision.

    "For all its acceptance in the scientific works as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.

    The problems are too severe and unsolvable.

    "Nearly all [evolutionist biologists] take an ultimately conservative stand, believing that [the problems] can be explained away by making only minor adjustments to the Darwinian framework. In this book . . I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 16.

    The theory is totally inadequate.

    "The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world."—*Sir Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1968), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].

    One of the outstanding scientists of the 19th century said this:

    " ‘Science positively demands creation.’ "—Lord Kelvin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, (1988), p. 94.

    Biological specialists recognize that the theory is inadequate.

    "The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate . . It results from this summary: the theory of evolution is impossible."—*P. Lemoine, "Introduction: De l’evolution," Encyclopedie Francaise, Vol. 5 (1937), p. 8.

    It is all one big scientific mistake.

    "The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."—*Louis Agassiz, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1986), p. 139. [Agassiz was a Harvard University professor.]

    It is a tottering mass of speculation.

    "To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all."—*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

    How to make a pseudoscience:

    "Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .

    "Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

    A mass of opinions heavily burdened with hypothesis.

    "From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*P.P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.

    There are so many ways to disprove it.

    "I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

    Forty years work and completely failed.

    "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

    "Not the slightest basis for the assumption."

    "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.

    The head of the paleontology department of a major U.S. museum speaks:

    "It’s true that for the last eighteen months or so I’ve been kicking around non-evolutionary or even antievolutionary ideas . .

    "So that is my first theme: that evolution and creation seem to be sharing remarkable parallels that are increasingly hard to tell apart. The second theme is that evolution not only conveys no knowledge but it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge."—*Colin Patterson, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

    In the study of natural history, we only find degeneration, extinction, and sub-species changes.

    "The majority of evolutionary movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival."—*John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91 [English geneticist].

    More like medieval astrology than 20th-century science.

    "Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists . . We face great, if not insurmountable conceptual, problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes. We saw this in the fossil record, in the case of the avian [bird] lung, and in the case of the wing of the bat. We saw it again in the case of the origin of life and we see it here in this new area of comparative biochemistry [molecular biochemistry] . . Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery, the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies [circular reasonings]."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1988), p. 308.

    Sub-species changes are worlds apart from providing an explanation for cross-species changes.

    "The facts of microevolution [change within the species] do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution [theorized change from one species to another]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940).

    Just as much of a puzzle now as ever before . . Only explainable on sociological grounds.

    "All in all, evolution remains almost as much of a puzzle as it was before Darwin advanced his thesis. Natural selection explains a small part of what occurs: the bulk remains unexplained. Darwinism is not so much a theory, as a sub-section of some theory as yet unformulated . .

    " ‘I for one . . am still at a loss to know why it is of selective advantage for the eels of Comacchio to travel perilously to the Sargasso sea . .’ complains Bertalanffy. ‘I think the fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable . . has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological [not scientific] grounds,’ von Bertalanffy concludes."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 232-233.

    Relying entirely upon the imagination to find a solution.

    "How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of [evolutionary] organization, if one relies entirely upon the imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we can not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca and Vertebrata . . From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origins of the phyla, it follows that an explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental plans is heavily burdened with hypotheses. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution."—*Pierre P. Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 178.

    *Milner is very much in favor of evolutionary theory, but he does have a few questions that need answering:

    "1. Origin of life. How did living matter originate out of non-living matter? . .

    "2. Origin of Sex. Why is sexuality so widespread in nature? How did maleness and femaleness arise? . .

    "3. Origin of Language. How did human speech originate? We see no examples of primitive languages on Earth today; all mankind’s languages are evolved and complex.

    "4. Origin of Phyla. What is the evolutionary relationship between existing phyla and those of the past? . . Transitional forms between phyla are almost unknown.

    "5. Cause of Mass Extinction. Asteroids are quite in vogue, but far from proven as a cause of worldwide extinctions . .

    "6. Relationship between DNA and Phenotype. Can small steady changes (micromutations) account for evolution, or must there be periodic larger jumps (macromutations)? Is DNA a complete blueprint for the individual? . .

    "7. How Much Can Natural Selection Explain? Darwin never claimed natural selection is the only mechanism of evolution. Although he considered it a major explanation, he continued to search for others, and the search continues."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 159-180.

    Yes, the search continues. The theory was developed 150 years ago; and men are still searching for evidence in support of it and mechanisms by which it could operate.
     
  9. Boss Jr.

    Boss Jr. New Member

    The National Academy of Sciences defines "theory" as follows:
    Disregarding your quote mining:

    1. Evolution is the explanation of how life diversifies, not how it began. That's called Abiogenesis.
    2. Maleness and femaleness is not shared by every species and likely has a common origin. See flatworm reproduction for how this may have happened.
    3. Language is actually a great analogy for how Evolution works (more on this later). Language began simple and there are examples of languages that are largely unchanged in more isolated communities in the Amazon and Africa as well as Australia. It's a long story but it began with the enlargement of the cavity over the tongue allowing our ancestors to express a larger range of sounds compared to our cousins which lead to more sophisticated sounds being used to communicate which lead to primitive language and eventually more complicated languages as each language's unique slang and jargan lead to more words being added.
    4. The relationship between phyla is ancestry. The phylogenetic tree is man's creation out of convenience so that we can draw barriers between animals and plants with shared traits but is otherwise rather pointless. Think of it this way, you are related to your siblings in the same way that you are related to your cousins and extended family etc.. You understand that you are all still part of the same family and it's irrelevant beyond that because you know at some point or another you all shared the same grand parent of great grand parent and so on. Frogs are all frogs are all amphibians are all tetrapods are all chordates are all eukaryotes. It doesn't matter because in the end we're all related. At the crown of every species related species start to look more and more like each other until the lines between them are nearly indistinguishable such that it becomes difficult to know of they're separate species at all.
    5. Uhhm, no, that's wrong. And here's why. There's a unique material found only in meteors called Iridium. An enormous amount of this material is found right at the KT Boundry and since the origin of this material is only ever alien it can only mean one thing. A large amount of it came from outer space and was spread around the world very quickly. Perhaps caused by... a meteor impact (maybe 2) at or around the same time period. Ergo, mass extinction.
    6. The simple answer is yes. DNA is a full blueprint for an organism. However not all of it may be useful. There is a such things as Junk DNA which if it causes no hindrance to the organism's survivability then it may freely accumulate as junk. But more specifically Genes are what's responsible for expressing the characteristics of an organism, such as the HOX Genes.
    7. Natural Selection is the force that drives evolution and can most easily be described as a process of elimination by strategically selecting for more beneficial mutations over less beneficial mutations and encouraging them to proliferate. For instance, if you imagine a bug that lives in trees and eats leafs. That bug is likely to have a predator probably a bird. The bugs that are harder for the bird to see are more likely to pass on the genetic legacy meaning that their specific and unique blueprint are more likely to become the standard of the species. Bugs that are either brown or green are less likely to be spotted than blue ones or orange ones or red ones. If they are also vaguely leaf shaped this also helps and the more leaf shaped they are the better. If you compile all of the small changes over the generations then the bug starts to look more and more and more leaf shaped and to be more and more leaf colored. If they also adapt a walking pattern that resembles a leaf shaking in the wind and so on.

    Another example of Microevolution... All domestic dogs are bred from the Wolf. This is common knowledge, and yet by selectively breeding them to achieve different results we managed to get these...
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Toxique

    Toxique New Member

    Agh, I hate these threads.
     
  11. Drago

    Drago New Member

    I don't believe in any religion. I've actually put my mother in tears because she's completely religious and "wants her kids to be in heaven with her". I'll post here the same thing I told her: There is no physical proof of a "God" or a "haven". The bible, a book, does not count as proof. Anyone can write in a book and claim something is true. There is no physical proof, no nothing to back up religious people's statements that there's a higher being.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page